Or the interaction of various impulses and chemicals in the brain/central nervous system.

I don't know that feelings are the best way to go about explaining the soul, but the problem I've always had with the *everything boils down to chemicals and impulses* is that chemicals and impulses are more an effect than an explanation. It would simply be the physical/"measurable" component that coincides with the situation. It almost makes it sound like chemicals and impulses are bumping around willy-nilly, randomly, arbitrarily, yet we know this is not the case.

Or the interaction of various impulses and chemicals in the brain/central nervous system.

I don't know that feelings are the best way to go about explaining the soul, but the problem I've always had with the *everything boils down to chemicals and impulses* is that chemicals and impulses are more an effect than an explanation. It would simply be the physical/"measurable" component that coincides with the situation. It almost makes it sound like chemicals and impulses are bumping around willy-nilly, randomly, arbitrarily, yet we know this is not the case.

People say that the religious experience is just a bunch of brain-processe s, but when I eat spaghetti, my brain starts doing this or that and no one questions the reality of my eating spaghetti.

Or the interaction of various impulses and chemicals in the brain/central nervous system.

I don't know that feelings are the best way to go about explaining the soul, but the problem I've always had with the *everything boils down to chemicals and impulses* is that chemicals and impulses are more an effect than an explanation. It would simply be the physical/"measurable" component that coincides with the situation. It almost makes it sound like chemicals and impulses are bumping around willy-nilly, randomly, arbitrarily, yet we know this is not the case.

Regarding effect vs. explanation: if chemicals were not capable of being an explanation, then consuming certain chemicals would not be able to repeatedly induce similar effects in a diverse number of people, of which these sensations can share much in common with religious experiences.

It is true that there is still much to learn about the interaction of chemical ratios and how this is interpreted by the brain, but that's not grounds for denying observable reality.

Or the interaction of various impulses and chemicals in the brain/central nervous system.

I don't know that feelings are the best way to go about explaining the soul, but the problem I've always had with the *everything boils down to chemicals and impulses* is that chemicals and impulses are more an effect than an explanation. It would simply be the physical/"measurable" component that coincides with the situation. It almost makes it sound like chemicals and impulses are bumping around willy-nilly, randomly, arbitrarily, yet we know this is not the case.

Regarding effect vs. explanation: if chemicals were not capable of being an explanation, then consuming certain chemicals would not be able to repeatedly induce similar effects in a diverse number of people, of which these sensations can share much in common with religious experiences.

It is true that there is still much to learn about the interaction of chemical ratios and how this is interpreted by the brain, but that's not grounds for denying observable reality.

I'm not even talking about religious experiences. I'm talking about just day to day stuff. The chain of cause and effect is just not there. When x happens, chemical y floods the brain, you react in a manner of A, you feel B. Of course A and B, might actually come before y and regulate y, yet people would have you believe that A and B is at the mercy of y if everything boils down to chemicals and impulses. Where do we place the will/self-control/will power? When you were younger you probably reacted differently, now you have more self control, yes? How do chemicals account for the mechanism of self control? I have consumed certain chemicals and I actually believe it is a mistake to use that as an angle for talking about the soul or religion. All that is self reported anyway, "religious experience" is just a manner of speaking, a real religious experience is not that intense, it is much more subtle.

You dodged my point completely about verifiable evidence: imbibing chemical x --> produces reaction Y, which can be predicted.

To the question of will:

Free will is denied in this scientific view. "Thought" is relegated to the same realm of chemicals/impulses/currents as the rest of brain activity. The brain is capable of organizing its reaction to various stimuli using the conscious mind ("self-control"), however this is communicated through the brain with the same material medium as all other thought. "I" am just part of the tools the brain uses for this purpose.

Anyway, if I were to explain the soul, I would go with Plato and say it is the charioteer that drives and controls the horses and the chariot. It is the aspect of man that is not at the mercy of physical concerns or impulses, it is the very ability to make a decision one way as opposed to the other.

This clearly is not the heart that feels emotions,Then we could attribute emotions to the soul?

Soul is probably the polar opposite of anything to do with emotion. Pure awareness is the closest description I could offer. See all, be all, exist everywhere, outside of time, and most of all feeling. Soul is more like a quantum particle than anything else. The smallest unit possible. And - incidentally - eternal.

Anyway, if I were to explain the soul, I would go with Plato and say it is the charioteer that drives and controls the horses and the chariot. It is the aspect of man that is not at the mercy of physical concerns or impulses, it is the very ability to make a decision one way as opposed to the other.

This idea has been out of style for some time. It similar enough to the "homunculus theory". Unfortunately it leads to an infinite regress; if a little man in my mind is deciding everything for me, then what is deciding everything for the little man? Another little man? Who decides for him?

Anyway, if I were to explain the soul, I would go with Plato and say it is the charioteer that drives and controls the horses and the chariot. It is the aspect of man that is not at the mercy of physical concerns or impulses, it is the very ability to make a decision one way as opposed to the other.

This idea has been out of style for some time. It similar enough to the "homunculus theory". Unfortunately it leads to an infinite regress; if a little man in my mind is deciding everything for me, then what is deciding everything for the little man? Another little man? Who decides for him?

Anyway, if I were to explain the soul, I would go with Plato and say it is the charioteer that drives and controls the horses and the chariot. It is the aspect of man that is not at the mercy of physical concerns or impulses, it is the very ability to make a decision one way as opposed to the other.

This idea has been out of style for some time. It similar enough to the "homunculus theory". Unfortunately it leads to an infinite regress; if a little man in my mind is deciding everything for me, then what is deciding everything for the little man? Another little man? Who decides for him?

The idea has pragmatic value if you apply it to human cognition.

Alright. I think I can see it either way. After all, we do seem to be living in a universe where infinity is not impossible. Maybe an infinite regress is actually not that absurd of an idea after all, when considering cognition.